A wide variety of mental and physical processes are known to be controlled or are influenced by neural activity in particular regions of the brain. In some areas of the brain, such as in the sensory or motor cortices, the organization of the brain resembles a map of the human body; this is referred to as the “somatotopic organization of the brain.” There are several other areas of the brain that appear to have distinct functions that are located in specific regions of the brain in most individuals. For example, areas of the occipital lobes relate to vision, regions of the left inferior frontal lobes relate to language in the majority of people, and regions of the cerebral cortex appear to be consistently involved with conscious awareness, memory, and intellect. This type of location-specific functional organization of the brain, in which discrete locations of the brain are statistically likely to control particular mental or physical functions in normal individuals, is herein referred to as the “functional organization of the brain.”
Many problems or abnormalities with body functions can be caused by damage, disease and/or disorders of the brain. A stroke, for example, is one very common condition that damages the brain. Strokes are generally caused by emboli (e.g., obstruction of a vessel), hemorrhages (e.g., rupture of a vessel), or thrombi (e.g., clotting) in the vascular system of a specific region of the cortex, which in turn generally causes a loss or impairment of a neural function (e.g., neural functions related to face muscles, limbs, speech, etc.). Stroke patients are typically treated using physical therapy to rehabilitate the loss of function of a limb or another affected body part. For most patients, little can be done to improve the function of the affected limb beyond the recovery that occurs naturally without intervention. One existing physical therapy technique for treating stroke patients constrains or restrains the use of a working body part of the patient to force the patient to use the affected body part. For example, the loss of use of a limb is treated by restraining the other limb. Although this type of physical therapy has shown some experimental efficacy, it is expensive, time-consuming and little-used. Stroke patients can also be treated using physical therapy plus adjunctive therapies. For example, some types of drugs, such as amphetamines, that increase the activation of neurons in general, appear to enhance neural networks; these drugs, however, have limited efficacy because they are very non-selective in their mechanisms of action and cannot be delivered in high concentrations directly at the site where they are needed. Therefore, there is a need to develop effective treatments for rehabilitating stroke patients and patients that have other types of brain damage.
Other brain disorders and diseases are also difficult to treat. Alzheimer's disease, for example, is known to affect portions of the cortex, but the cause of Alzheimer's disease and how it alters the neural activity in the cortex is not fully understood. Similarly, the neural activity of brain disorders (e.g., depression and obsessive-compulsive behavior) is also not fully understood. Therefore, there is also a need to develop more effective treatments for other brain disorders and diseases.
The neural activity in the brain can be influenced by electrical energy that is supplied from an external source outside of the body. Various neural functions can thus be promoted or disrupted by applying an electrical current to the cortex or other region of the brain. As a result, the quest for treating damage, disease and disorders in the brain have led to research directed toward using electricity or magnetism to control brain functions.
One type of treatment is transcranial electrical stimulation (TES), which involves placing an electrode on the exterior of the scalp and delivering an electrical current to the brain through the scalp and skull. Patents directed to TES include: U.S. Pat. No. 5,540,736 issued to Haimovich et al. (for providing analgesia); U.S. Pat. No. 4,140,133 issued to Katrubin et al. (for providing anesthesia); U.S. Pat. No. 4,646,744 issued to Capel (for treating drug addiction, appetite disorders, stress, insomnia and pain); and U.S. Pat. No. 4,844,075 issued to Liss et al. (for treating pain and motor dysfunction associated with cerebral palsy). TES, however, is not widely used because the patients experience a great amount of pain and the electrical field is difficult to direct or focus accurately.
Another type of treatment is transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), which involves producing a high-powered magnetic field adjacent to the exterior of the scalp over an area of the cortex. TMS does not cause the painful side effects of TES. Since 1985, TMS has been used primarily for research purposes in brain-mapping endeavors. Recently, however, potential therapeutic applications have been proposed primarily for the treatment of depression. A small number of clinical trials have found TMS to be effective in treating depression when used to stimulate the left prefrontal cortex.
The TMS treatment of a few other patient groups have been studied with promising results, such as patients with Parkinson's disease and hereditary spinocerebellar degeneration. Patents and published patent applications directed to TMS include: published international patent application WO 98/06342 (describing a transcranial magnetic stimulator and its use in brain mapping studies and in treating depression); U.S. Pat. No. 5,885,976 issued to Sandyk (describing the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation to treat a variety of disorders allegedly related to deficient serotonin neurotransmission and impaired pineal melatonin functions); and U.S. Pat. No. 5,092,835 issued to Schurig et al. (describing the treatment of neurological disorders (such as autism), treatment of learning disabilities, and augmentation of mental and physical abilities of “normal” people by a combination of transcranial magnetic stimulation and peripheral electrical stimulation).
Independent studies have also demonstrated that TMS is able to produce a lasting change in neural activity within the cortex that occurs for a period of time after terminating the TMS treatment (“neuroplasticity”). For example, Ziemann et al., Modulation of Plasticity in Human Motor Cortex after Forearm Ischemic Nerve Block, 18 J Neuroscience 1115 (February 1998), disclose that TMS at subthreshold levels (e.g., levels at which movement was not induced) in neuro-block models that mimic amputation was able to modify the lasting changes in neural activity that normally accompany amputation. Similarly, Pascual-Leone et al. (submitted for publication) disclose that applying TMS over the contralateral motor cortex in normal subjects who underwent immobilization of a hand in a cast for 5 days can prevent the decreased motor cortex excitability normally associated with immobilization. Other researchers have proposed that the ability of TMS to produce desired changes in the cortex may someday be harnessed to enhance neuro-rehabilitation after a brain injury, such as stroke, but there are no published studies to date.
Other publications related to TMS include Cohen et al., Studies of Neuroplasticity With Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, 15 J. Clin. Neurophysiol. 305 (1998); Pascual-Leone et al., Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation and Neuroplasticity, 37 Neuropsychologia 207 (1999); Stefan et al., Induction of Plasticity in the Human Motor Cortex by Paired Associative Stimulation, 123 Brain 572 (2000); Sievner et al., Lasting Cortical Activation after repetitive TMS of the Motor Cortex, 54 Neurology 956 (February 2000); Pascual-Leone et al., Study and Modulation of Human Cortical Excitability With Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, 15 J. Clin. Neurophysiol. 333 (1998); and Boylan et al., Magnetoelectric Brain Stimulation in the Assessment Of Brain Physiology And Pathophysiology, 111 Clin. Neurophysiology 504 (2000).
Although TMS appears to be able to produce a change in the underlying cortex beyond the time of actual stimulation, TMS is not presently effective for treating many patients because the existing delivery systems are not practical for applying stimulation over an adequate period of time. TMS systems, for example, are relatively complex and require stimulation treatments to be performed by a healthcare professional in a hospital or physician's office. TMS systems also may not be reliable for longer-term therapies because it is difficult to (a) accurately localize the region of stimulation in a reproducible manner, and (b) hold the device in the correct position over the cranium for a long period, especially when a patient moves or during rehabilitation. Furthermore, current TMS systems generally do not sufficiently focus the electromagnetic energy on the desired region of the cortex for many applications. As such, the potential therapeutic benefit of TMS using existing equipment is relatively limited.
Direct and indirect electrical stimulation of the central nervous system has also been proposed to treat a variety of disorders and conditions. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 5,938,688 issued to Schiff notes that the phenomenon of neuroplasticity may be harnessed and enhanced to treat cognitive disorders related to brain injuries caused by trauma or stroke. Schiff's implant is designed to increase the level of arousal of a comatose patient by stimulating deep brain centers involved in consciousness. To do this, Schiffs invention involves electrically stimulating at least a portion of the patient's intralaminar nuclei (i.e., the deep brain) using, e.g., an implantable multipolar electrode and either an implantable pulse generator or an external radiofrequency controlled pulse generator. Schiff's deep brain implant is highly invasive, however, and could involve serious complications for the patient.
Likewise, U.S. Pat. No. 6,066,163 issued to John acknowledges the ability of the brain to overcome some of the results of an injury through neuroplasticity. John also cites a series of articles as evidence that direct electrical stimulation of the brain can reverse the effects of a traumatic injury or stroke on the level of consciousness. The system disclosed in John stimulates the patient and modifies the parameters of stimulation based upon the outcome of comparing the patient's present state with a reference state in an effort to optimize the results. Like Schiff, however, the invention disclosed in John is directed to a highly invasive deep brain stimulation system.
Another device for stimulating a region of the brain is disclosed by King in U.S. Pat. No. 5,713,922. King discloses a device for cortical surface stimulation having electrodes mounted on a paddle implanted under the skull of the patient. The electrodes are implanted on the surface of the brain in a fixed position. The electrodes in King accordingly cannot move to accommodate changes in the shape of the brain. King also discloses that the electrical pulses are generated by a pulse generator that is implanted in the patient remotely from the cranium (e.g., subclavicular implantation). The pulse generator is not directly connected to the electrodes, but rather it is electrically coupled to the electrodes by a cable that extends from the remotely implanted pulse generator to the electrodes implanted in the cranium. The cable disclosed in King extends from the paddle, around the skull, and down the neck to the subclavicular location of the pulse generator.
King discloses implanting the electrodes in contact with the surface of the cortex to create paresthesia, which is a sensation of vibration or “buzzing” in a patient. More specifically, King discloses inducing paresthesia in large areas by applying electrical stimulation to a higher element of the central nervous system (e.g., the cortex). As such, King discloses placing the electrodes against particular regions of the brain to induce the desired paresthesia. The purpose of creating paresthesia over a body region is to create a distracting stimulus that effectively reduces perception of pain in the body region. Thus, King appears to require stimulation above activation levels.
Although King discloses a device that stimulates a region on the cortical surface, this device is expected to have several drawbacks. First, it is expensive and time-consuming to implant the pulse generator and the cable in the patient. Second, it appears that the electrodes are held at a fixed elevation that does not compensate for anatomical changes in the shape of the brain relative to the skull, which makes it difficult to accurately apply an electrical stimulation to a desired target site of the cortex in a focused, specific manner. Third, King discloses directly activating the neurons to cause paresthesia, which is not expected to cause entrainment of the activity in the stimulated population of neurons with other forms of therapy or adaptive behavior, such as physical or occupational therapy. Thus, King is expected to have several drawbacks.
King and the other foregoing references are also expected to have drawbacks in producing the desired neural activity because these references generally apply the therapy to the region of the brain that is responsible for the physiological function or mental process according to the functional organization of the brain. In the case of a brain injury or disease, however, the region of the brain associated with the affected physiological function or cognitive process may not respond to stimulation therapies. Thus, existing techniques may not produce adequate results that last beyond the stimulation period.
In some cases, retraction of part of the brain is used in neurosurgical procedures, e.g., to reach certain brain areas or for device implantation procedures. Prior studies have indicated that forces applied intermittently via retraction may not create damage (see J. Neurosurg. 1983 June: 58(6):918-23, “Intermittent versus continuous brain retraction: An experimental study” by Yokoh A., Sugita K., Kobayashi S.). This article reports that brain damage due to retraction was studied morphologically and physiologically in the dog brain. Two methods of retraction were compared using a retractor with a strain gauge: 1) continuous retraction; and 2) intermittent retraction. Total retraction time was 60 minutes for each method. Brain damage started to appear at a retraction force of 30 gm with continuous retraction, and increased in proportion to the force used. The power spectrum of the electrocorticogram showed full recovery after the release of retraction when the retraction force was less than 40 gm. With intermittent retraction, the damage was morphologically minimal with a retraction force of less than 50 gm, and recovery of the power spectrum of the electrocorticogram was prompt in comparison with continuous retraction. According to this article, the results indicate the superiority with respect to safety and tolerability of intermittent over continuous retraction.